Vincent Blachshadow Posted January 29, 2013 Report Share Posted January 29, 2013 (edited) One thing is consistent about Panthers fans - they use the rules to defend the indefensible as if they are the paragons of virtue. I have posted a number of times of a situation where Panthers didn't follow the rules you so want everyone to follow - and no one has posted an acceptable answer to justify their actions. The rules state that if a club isn't planning on using an asset, the club they last rode for on loan has first refusal of their services - yet Peterborough allowed Coventry to speak to Hans and not Swindon - a clear breach of the rules. So before you quote rules - think again - all clubs are guilty of applying or ignoring rules to suit their situation and the holier than thou stance doesn't wash just as it didn't during the winter of discontent That's been answered a time or two already. If a rider is offered for sale rather than a loan for the following season whoever he rode for last is immaterial. Coventry were interested in buying him and the seller can sell to whoever he wants. Edited January 29, 2013 by Vincent Blackshadow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy robin Posted January 29, 2013 Report Share Posted January 29, 2013 There never able to use them on a consistent basis so can you blame them, ??? if the rules allowed them to use them and they didn't it's a different story,but going by recent agms the chances off a club using 3 top class heatleaders is slim to say the least So the question is if your were mrs frost would you be happy with your fellow promoters who keep voting that you couldn't use your assets,i wouldn't and i'd want rid (esp since it's likely that panthers will keep nailing bjerres and sundstroms colours to the mask in the future) IF theres a elite league in the future Speedway has always worked this way & it used to be the speedway control board who used to move riders to clubs they didn't even want to ride for in the 60's & 70's. Both Bob Kilby & Martin Ashby had spells at Exeter as a result when both didn't want to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foreverblue Posted January 29, 2013 Report Share Posted January 29, 2013 There never able to use them on a consistent basis so can you blame them, ??? if the rules allowed them to use them and they didn't it's a different story,but going by recent agms the chances off a club using 3 top class heatleaders is slim to say the least So the question is if your were mrs frost would you be happy with your fellow promoters who keep voting that you couldn't use your assets,i wouldn't and i'd want rid (esp since it's likely that panthers will keep nailing bjerres and sundstroms colours to the mask in the future) IF theres a elite league in the future Most clubs have assets they can't use,they are just happy to get a loan fee because it is unlikely anyone would want to buy them,i would imagine Ipswich would have been more than happy to sell Miskowiak or Staychra but if they had insisted on a full transfer i expect Poole would have declined the invitation.We even managed to get Tony Rickardsson on loan and i am sure Ipswich wouldn't have minded a full transfer for him either! Then there's Crumpy paid a fortune for him and he only did one season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BluPanther Posted January 29, 2013 Report Share Posted January 29, 2013 (edited) Most clubs have assets they can't use,they are just happy to get a loan fee because it is unlikely anyone would want to buy them,i would imagine Ipswich would have been more than happy to sell Miskowiak or Staychra but if they had insisted on a full transfer i expect Poole would have declined the invitation.We even managed to get Tony Rickardsson on loan and i am sure Ipswich wouldn't have minded a full transfer for him either! Then there's Crumpy paid a fortune for him and he only did one season. Agreed, that proves the current system does not work, and unfortunately the rules and regulations that surround it are not enforced consistently. Its time these clowns(bspa) looked long and hard at it. If a rider has been purchased, that club should recieve a loan fee until that fee is recouped, if he has not been bought he should be a free agent. There is so much movement of riders that it is hard to offer long term contracts, thats why the asset system is unworkable in its present format. Edited January 29, 2013 by blupanther Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dj350z Posted January 29, 2013 Report Share Posted January 29, 2013 In case you don't know (and that is very clear) - you don't need to buy riders - that's what loans are for ..........and if it is not necessary to buy riders, can you explain how a team can loan a rider? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveLyric2 Posted January 29, 2013 Report Share Posted January 29, 2013 One thing is consistent about Panthers fans - they use the rules to defend the indefensible as if they are the paragons of virtue. I have posted a number of times of a situation where Panthers didn't follow the rules you so want everyone to follow - and no one has posted an acceptable answer to justify their actions. The rules state that if a club isn't planning on using an asset, the club they last rode for on loan has first refusal of their services - yet Peterborough allowed Coventry to speak to Hans and not Swindon - a clear breach of the rules. So before you quote rules - think again - all clubs are guilty of applying or ignoring rules to suit their situation and the holier than thou stance doesn't wash just as it didn't during the winter of discontent Most unfair Steve0, you surely know that its Poole who are the paragons of virtue!!!! Tsk tsk!! So are we all having to wait til March 1st to get the Batch situation sorted or are talks with the bank(s) ongoing?!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foreverblue Posted January 29, 2013 Report Share Posted January 29, 2013 ..........and if it is not necessary to buy riders, can you explain how a team can loan a rider? When they first arrive in this country they are not bought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dj350z Posted January 29, 2013 Report Share Posted January 29, 2013 When they first arrive in this country they are not bought. So you can't loan them then! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveLyric2 Posted January 29, 2013 Report Share Posted January 29, 2013 When they first arrive in this country they are not bought. That depends on who pays for them to get here in the first place!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foreverblue Posted January 29, 2013 Report Share Posted January 29, 2013 So you can't loan them then! Oh yes you can as there is money invested in them to get them here and they become assets of that club. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BluPanther Posted January 29, 2013 Report Share Posted January 29, 2013 Funny that nearly 50% (So far) of other teams assets make up the Peterborough team as well Oh and on the Play Off Final comment, you have to be in it to win it and can only beat what is in front of you, which the Robins were and did! Yes thats true, but i dont recollect any fuss in P'boro signing these riders, all done above board and within the regulations. When P'boro were first interested in Troy, did not the Swindon promotion insist on a full transfer. and did not Mr Frost get his chq book out and purchased him on a full transfer as requested by Swindon. Is this not a fact ? The big question here is why Swindon are so reluctant to buy him back..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foreverblue Posted January 29, 2013 Report Share Posted January 29, 2013 Does a rider have to be a asset of a club or can he buy himself out and be totally freelance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noggin Posted January 29, 2013 Report Share Posted January 29, 2013 Yes thats true, but i dont recollect any fuss in P'boro signing these riders, all done above board and within the regulations. When P'boro were first interested in Troy, did not the Swindon promotion insist on a full transfer. and did not Mr Frost get his chq book out and purchased him on a full transfer as requested by Swindon. Is this not a fact ? The big question here is why Swindon are so reluctant to buy him back..... Batch was offered a place that season, but still has a monk on for being replaced by Zagar when he was Injured, he Isn't in Boro's plans for this and never was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crump99 Posted January 29, 2013 Report Share Posted January 29, 2013 (edited) Most unfair Steve0, you surely know that its Poole who are the paragons of virtue!!!! Tsk tsk!! So are we all having to wait til March 1st to get the Batch situation sorted or are talks with the bank(s) ongoing?!! What happens on Mar 1? Edited January 29, 2013 by Crump99 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Blachshadow Posted January 29, 2013 Report Share Posted January 29, 2013 Batch was offered a place that season, but still has a monk on for being replaced by Zagar when he was Injured, he Isn't in Boro's plans for this and never was. No, but he was in their plans last year before disappearing off of their radar for a while, reappearing in the Swindon area once Panthers' team was completed without him. Maybe the BSPA/MC have slightly longer memories than some fans. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve0 Posted January 29, 2013 Report Share Posted January 29, 2013 What happens on Mar 1? Batch can go on loan if not signed before - according to the BSPA rules! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BluPanther Posted January 29, 2013 Report Share Posted January 29, 2013 Batch can go on loan if not signed before - according to the BSPA rules! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve0 Posted January 29, 2013 Report Share Posted January 29, 2013 Oh right - so you don't want to apply that rule because it doesn't suit you 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Blachshadow Posted January 29, 2013 Report Share Posted January 29, 2013 Batch can go on loan if not signed before - according to the BSPA rules! If that's a rule, why have the purchases directed by the MC in the past been made, like Panthers signing Batch for example? Why didn't they just wait until March 1st and get him on loan? Any examples of that rule being used? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barney Rabbit Posted January 29, 2013 Report Share Posted January 29, 2013 If that's a rule, why have the purchases directed by the MC in the past been made, like Panthers signing Batch for example? Why didn't they just wait until March 1st and get him on loan? Any examples of that rule being used? And, taking this a step further, why have KL paid out for Rooboy when all they had to do is wait until March and get him on loan, since, as they say, money is short? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.